We have some incredible news to share with you guys this afternoon! Apparently, The White House has responded to the 114k folks who signed a petition to legalize cellphone unlocking, and they agree unequivocally that it needs to happen! Here's a quote with the full details of their response, followed by a source link to the original,

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TO
Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal.
It's Time to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking
By R. David Edelman

Thank you for sharing your views on cell phone unlocking with us through your petition on our We the People platform. Last week the White House brought together experts from across government who work on telecommunications, technology, and copyright policy, and we're pleased to offer our response.

The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.

This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs -- even if it isn't the one on which the device was first activated. All consumers deserve that flexibility.

The White House's position detailed in this response builds on some critical thinking done by the President's chief advisory Agency on these matters: the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). For more context and information on the technical aspects of the issue, you can review the NTIA's letter to the Library of Congress' Register of Copyrights (.pdf), voicing strong support for maintaining the previous exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for cell phone carrier unlocking.

Contrary to the NTIA's recommendation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that phones purchased after January of this year would no longer be exempted from the DMCA. The law gives the Librarian the authority to establish or eliminate exceptions -- and we respect that process. But it is also worth noting the statement the Library of Congress released today on the broader public policy concerns of the issue. Clearly the White House and Library of Congress agree that the DMCA exception process is a rigid and imperfect fit for this telecommunications issue, and we want to ensure this particular challenge for mobile competition is solved.

So where do we go from here?

The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.

We also believe the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with its responsibility for promoting mobile competition and innovation, has an important role to play here. FCC Chairman Genachowski today voiced his concern about mobile phone unlocking (.pdf), and to complement his efforts, NTIA will be formally engaging with the FCC as it addresses this urgent issue.

Finally, we would encourage mobile providers to consider what steps they as businesses can take to ensure that their customers can fully reap the benefits and features they expect when purchasing their devices.

We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, the wireless and mobile phone industries, and most importantly you -- the everyday consumers who stand to benefit from this greater flexibility -- to ensure our laws keep pace with changing technology, protect the economic competitiveness that has led to such innovation in this space, and offer consumers the flexibility and freedoms they deserve.

This part is especially appreciated, and sums up the best reasons for moving forward with this ===> "It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs."

Yet, absolutely nothing has actually changed! It's still illegal to unlock your phone without permission. They agree with us yet the Librarian has not reversed his/her decision. It's still up to the Librarian unless the relevant law is repealed/amended.

It's a step in the right direction. As I wrote previously, the FCC will be investigating it, and now that the White House has publicly agreed with the perspective, there will obviously be a bigger push behind it. The statement was just made this afternoon, so we can't expect instantaneous results. Now it's time to move forward with the movement!

I also think if you pay Full price for a Smart phone.. you should be allowed to delete all the Bloatware, I am required to pay full price now. or lose my unlimited Data plan.. ( which I am not giving up ) So if they are not Subsidizing my phone.. I dont want all their Crap.

I like the direction, but i can't see myself leaving VZW any time soon.

I also think we get hosed on carrier subsidies propping up the retail prices of phones. So this news is kind of anti-climatic in the sense of "woohoo, I can go spend $700 on a phone I can take to any carrier".

And as long as carriers are locking people in because retail prices are too high for most to buy without a contract subsidy, then there won't be much benefit accruing to the consumer as far as increase competition bringing down service plan costs.

Does anyone know offhand if it is stated in the contract that a subsidized phone must stay connected to them until the contract is fulfilled?

Because I don't see a difference between subsidized purchases and full price purchases as far as ownership of the device goes. The subsidy/discount is an enticemnet to get you to choose that service provider over another and in return they get you to sign a contract and get their money for the phone from you that way. As long as you are fulfilling your part on the contract by paying your bill the device should be yours to do with as you will. However, if you fail to uphold your agreement, I can see where they could hold you responsible for the cost of device as part of the damages for breach of contract because you haven't fully paid for it yet. So, as long as I'm still making payments on the contract I should be able to unlock a phone and connect to another service provider if I want to pay them too.

Does anyone know offhand if it is stated in the contract that a subsidized phone must stay connected to them until the contract is fulfilled?

Because I don't see a difference between subsidized purchases and full price purchases as far as ownership of the device goes. The subsidy/discount is an enticemnet to get you to choose that service provider over another and in return they get you to sign a contract and get their money for the phone from you that way. As long as you are fulfilling your part on the contract by paying your bill the device should be yours to do with as you will. However, if you fail to uphold your agreement, I can see where they could hold you responsible for the cost of device as part of the damages for breach of contract because you haven't fully paid for it yet. So, as long as I'm still making payments on the contract I should be able to unlock a phone and connect to another service provider if I want to pay them too.

Click to expand...

They can do as they please with a contract, I do not know what most contracts say(as I have not had one in years) but old ones had no such clause in them where you must keep said phone on said WISP.

You can, however bet there will be a change if something was to come of this white house response. As I said before anything they wish to put into that contract can be added.

Next; to the person who said phones are to high in price. I would side with you on high end devices, geek heads such as ourselves get hit hard. Still we need to look at the big picture, many people get low to mid range phones. Phones like this only run up-words of 250. To lock yourself into a two year agreement is silly for such a cheap price. People just see "free" or "only $50" and flock to it. Yet at the same rate they are now looking at over $2000 in fees for two years. We really only have ourselves to blame for the way the system is to some extent. Nothing keeps us bound we choose this.

I myself like the freedom to move around, even if I have not used it yet. Currently I am working off a old Verizon plan I have had for nearly 10 years now. But if that somehow went away the next month I would be part of T-mobiles $30 plan with one of my already unlocked phones sitting in my drawer.

Useful Searches

About DroidForums.net

DroidForums.net was founded in 2009 originally dedicated for the Motorola Droid, the first Verizon Android Phone. We have since expanded our community to cover all Android Phones, Android Tablets, and Android Wearables. We discuss various topics including Android Help, Android Device Reviews, Android Apps, Phone Accessories, Android Games and more. Our ultimate goal is to be the Internet's best and largest Android Forum.